The new process should as far as possible be ITIL confirm. My problem is, does IT make sense/is it possible to implement two processes according to ITIL (Change and Releasemanagement).

Hi Avalanche,

I do not understand where you put the emphasis of your question. Two processes as compared to what? 0? All at the same time?

If it solves a problem within your organisation, it makes perfect sense to work on these two processes. However, you will find that after a while, you'll get to a maturitylevel for CHM and RM where it is not (cost)effective to further work on the improvement of these processes without improving other processes first (often, the first 'other' proces is config. management). Depending on the present state of your CHM and RM, this breaking point might take a long time to get to (>12 months).

Since I am not sure about the direction of your question, please let me know whether this is an answer to your question.

My problem is, that ITIL gives me a great framework and the interfaces between all processes, but somehow I feel that by only implementing part of it, a lot of potential optimizing is being lost... It's more like a dilemma where to pull the boarders for this project.

There isn't a wrong or right answer. The decision needs to be made by your organisation.

The biggest question is 'why are you putting these things into place?' If the answer is 'because its a nice thing to do' then it probably is a lot of work for nothing.

If however the business requires you to put some sort of control and monitoring then ITIL is probably a good thing to start with but adapt it. Leaving things out of a process when ITIL suggests it should be there isn't always wrong so long as the fundemental requirements are there e.g. decision makers.

If you already have a helpdesk etc then it might be an idea to suggest to your organisation and business that it is a good idea to look at service management as a whole and provide them with the benefits.

Ryan is right. You see, you don't just implement ITIL. You implement what makes sense for your organization. The truth is, as you implement certain parts, you eventually find hard benefits in implementing other things and you can end up with a full model.

There are a lot of organizations who already do part of what ITIL prescribes. Only they don't call it the same names. You need to focus on where you're going to make the biggest gain for the buck. Otherwise you are just, well, in an academic exercise _________________BR,
Fabien Papleux

You need to focus on Application Management rather than Service Support and/or Delivery

What you are tying to IMNSHO is force Service Support on Application Development - especially Change Management

The problem is that Service Support depends on the fact that the Service supplied is LIVE and there are providers of the service and consumers (users) of that service._________________John Hardesty
ITSM Manager's Certificate (Red Badge)

I've re-written your questions, as I understand them, and tried to answer them as best as I can:

Is it possible and common to implement only one or two processes of ITIL? Yes, it is possible and very common for enterprises to implement only one or two processes at a time. As a matter of fact, most enterprises are not in the business of ITIL and, as a result, have no real internal expertise on how to implement ITIL. At best, they may have some trained people who have never really implemented any real parts of ITIL. The end result is that such enterprises can't help but implement only one or two processes.

The common practice is to try and implement one discipline, as best as an enterprise can, rather than trying to implement many disciplines to be "good enough", with room for improvement. We find that the latter is more effective. The problem in trying to implement more than one discipline at a time is that very few people within an enterprise truly have the experience necessary for a big picture view of how all IT operational areas interact with each other so people default to what they know, which is typically the localized area they work in (such as Service Desk or Change Mgmt, etc.). People who understand the big picture of how Dev, Support, Engineering, PMO, etc. all tie together are very rare or at high enough levels that they have bigger problems. This is why bringing in experts is usually more effective.

Does it make sense to do so? This depends on many factors. Budget, internal expertise, goals, maturity of existing roles/responsibilities/organizations, etc. Trying to improve things like your processes, services, quality, etc. are always noble. But, in the end, everything is a financial decision and someone has to weigh the financial tradeoff against the return. Any implementation work also has to get weighed against the priority of other work in the enterprise.

Does implementing individual and/or limited parts of ITIL disciplines lose value if other disciplines are not also implemented? Absolutely. Many of the disciplines are interlinked and interdependent and implementing one without the other definitely will force you to put stop gaps in places where you have intended hooks to other disciplines but have no tangible answers for them. However, this doesn't mean that implementing a single discipline doesn't add value. It just means that you may not gain the full value until you've implemented other disciplines. It's an ongoing and incremental improvement.

Personally, I recommend you find an expert that can help you implement many different disciplines, simultaneously, and as quickly as possible. We find that implementing multiple parallel disciplines, even if incomplete, usually provides a better overall solution than implementing any one discipline to be above average.

So how do you speed up implementation and possibly implement more than one discipline at a time so that you can experience value? For one thing, get experts that have implemented ITIL to come in and help you do it. Most people that have been trained/certified have the theory but don't have the tangible experience to understand the real issues they will run into. Someone that implement ITIL for a living can typically help you implement a single discipline in a fraction of the time. He or she has already built out the templates many times over, set up the documentation many times over, defined the processes many times over, etc. The second part of this answer is tool related. Most enterprises implementing ITIL disciplines pick one or two tools at a time to address the discipline of the day that they're focused on. This tends to be very short-sighted, as they will eventually implement tools later that aren't compatible to the existing tools, which will cause even more issues. Also, a great deal of delay comes from the fact that most ITIL tools require post purchase customization. So, to address the tools issue, you can find ITIL platforms that solve for many disciplines, at once, and that require little to no post purchase customization. This should shave off a very significant portion of your implementation window, while ensuring a higher probability of integration between the tools and, ultimately, the processes.